Jim Hill got kicked out of Disney Land

[manning]

Here's the story

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1356

[what]

That was very interesting. I didn't know things like that went on. Did he have permission from them to do such a thing? If he did, I certainly believe they would have wanted transcripts of what was being said. Seems to me that what he was doing is against the law. I wonder if he has records of the number of tours he has conducted and what he profited. He could possibly be opening up a huge can of worms for himself. I would definately hope he let the IRS in on his tour business. For his sake he should hope that getting kicked out is the only thing happens.

[crusader]

I'm sure it comes as no real surprise to him that the company does not appreciate what he was doing. I'd be real careful about that "CD" he's marketing.

Look, they've basically allowed him to do what he wants for years. I think he got a bit careless about it and that's really all it took to shut down this element of his operation. You can't infringe on another guest's experience - especially when you are on company property.

He wasn't just giving a harmless tour - he was looking for dirt.

[Luv2Roam]

Sounds very strange.
I can only assume he is charging his customers for touring?
Gotta give him points for being enterprising. It will be interesting to see how much further this goes.

[WebmasterCricket]

He is running a business out of the park, which should have landed him on the blunt side of a gavel rather than just a Timberland in the rump.

[Plus4206]

Maybe next trip to OKW I'll set up a keg at one of the quiet pools and sell $2.00 pints.

[sc9500]

What about all those "chartered" foreign tours you see walking around the world? Are they also getting hassled? or just because no one understands what's being said by the guides that its ok? :rolleyes:

[WebmasterCricket]

As long as it's cold, I'll take 2!

[Plus4206]

Hey, at that price the keg will be floatin before all the ice melts.

[All Aboard]

SC9500 makes a good point. In addition to the international "Holding up the stick with a flag on it" tours, what about the people who hire themselves out as personal tourguides?

Not sure that's illegal as WebmasterCricket asserts.

If I wanted to sell the service of carrying people around on my back all day at WDW to keep their feet from getting tired, could I be arrested? How about if I was just a personal Sherpa - carrying shopping bags and cameras and autograph books around all day? Isn't that "running a business out of the theme park"?

[WebmasterCricket]

Well I wasn't saying he was breaking any laws, just that Disney could sue him and he should (and probably would) loose.

The difference as I see it between Jim's business and the other groups including your "sherpa" business is that they are assisting guests and somehow Disney doesn't see that as a threat or competition to an existing service. Jim is using the park itself as the main purpose of the business and not just a secondary location for a business that could exist on it's own. The international tour groups may even have prior permission for all we know. For that matter, they may be there with Disney's blessing (doubtful, but it's possible).

I know this has come up before with the photographers. Does anyone remember what the issue was with that and whether or not they are allowed officially?

Does anyone doubt that there is more to the story than Jim is revealing?

[WebmasterCricket]

Reportedly Disney's official response:

http://o-meon.com/pages/news%26features/n%26f_03-21-05.html#anchor

[CarnotaurDad]

Thanks for the link. That makes sense about the international guides getting them from Point A to Point B. They aren't telling stories about Disney, they're just guiding them along.

[YoHo]

I don't think overall what Hill was doing is illegal. I mean, I can get a group of friends together and give them any tour of Disney I want. What's Disney gonna do about it? I can't talk?


The problem seems to be that Jim was using Disney resources (the tour garden).

If he was smart, he would have started the tour in the parkinglot or entrance plaza, because Disney is right, he doesn't have the right to lead those tours if they don't want him to.

[All Aboard]

Disney's spokeperson states that only Disney cast members can give tours of Disneyland. I suppose that policy spills over into Central Florida.

Does that mean this guy (http://www.michaelsvips.com/vip_tour.htm) is in violation of Disney policy. Or, does it go under the "point a to point b" category because he's not the author of a Disney website?

[WebmasterCricket]

Sounds like a point A to point B deal to me.

What does his website have to do with it? Do you really think that Jim Hill or his site is a drop in the bucket to Disney? It's his direct disregard to stealing customers that seems to be the reason for the escorted tour directly to the front entrance. Thinking his website matters to them is a inflated ego at work if you ask me.

[WebmasterCricket]

I do also want to state that Jim should get quite a bit of credit for taking one on the chin and getting back up to his feet without throwing a tantrum (yet). I really thought he would have freaked out afterwards.

[All Aboard]

stealing customers I'd bet that nearly all of Jim's customers are ultra-geekazoid-Disney nerds that load up on everything they possibly can that's Disney. They either have gone on the Walk in Walt's Footsteps or have no interest - with or without the presence of Jim Hill's tours. He cannot take them behind the scenes physically. Disney can.

How often do you really think a casual theme park visitor has gone to jimhillmedia and said, "look, here's an alternative to Disney's tours, I think I'll take this one instead."?

Honestly.

His website have an impact? Got him kicked out of the 2004 Disney Annual meeting.

[WebmasterCricket]

No, if i'm not mistaken (and I could be, that was a year ago and I don't remember the details all that well) Jim wasn't granted "media" access which furthur drives the nail home to the effect that Disney considers him a non-issue.

Also, allowing one person to run a tour (granted the mis-directed ladies were the lynch pin in this case) could open up the door to, as a poster on Jim's site stated "a slippery slope".

[WebmasterCricket]

Found it:

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=179

Well, I was pretty close. :)

[All Aboard]

Also, allowing one person to run a tour But, that's the point I'm trying to make. They allow many people to run a tour - the internationals, Michael's VIP's, etc. And, Michael is in direct competition with Disney's own VIP tour service. If you read his website, he comes right out and tells you that he used to do them for Disney, knew he could do it better than them, and started his own company. I'd say he's "stealing" more from Disney than Jim Hill is.

My beef here is that Disney has selected Jim Hill as the one tour that they DON'T allow. And, it's because they don't like the content.

Yes, it's their property, yes they make the rules, yes Jim has to obide. But, I really do believe that since it's Jim, they targeted him.

For the record, I sit the fence when it comes to his opinions. But, then again, I'm very centrist on most things.

[raidermatt]

I'm also far from a Jim Hill "fan". I don't even read his stuff very often.

But I'm with Greg on this. It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal. That doesn't mean that I think the upper echelons at Team Disney are having daily meetings on how to counter Jim Hill. But somebody, and maybe its just a mid-level manager, got tired of it and singled him out.


And really, Mr. Cricket, the archived article doesn't exactly support the position that he is consdidered a non-entity by Disney. If he had been denied access from the beginning, maybe. But they singled him out by pulling his credentials at the last minute. That's not something that happens to a single "non-entity".

Further, unless he was lying, they TOLD him he was being singled out due to his remarks printed in the Wall Street Journal.

Clearly, SOMEBODY at Disney considers him an entity.

[Luv2Roam]

The difference I see with MICHAEL'S VIPS service is that is a service Disney does not offer. If they did, then it may make a difference. MICHAEL'S appears to be a concierge service that starts with an itinerary and even includes other parks besides Disney. It would not surprise me if MICHAEL'S has to pay a fee to the companies where he offers tours.
Personally I would rather take a sanctioned behind the scenes Disney tour.

[DVCconvert]

No big surprise to me really. JHM (Jim) was granted Media status, but closed out of attending the Philadelphia Freedom and stockholders meetings last year.
I recall reading his press about being closed out. IMHO, "God" Ei$ner had JH on his craplist as JHM has not been "policatically correct" enough for "God". Other points here are valid too, but that's how I see the bottom line in this case.

[what]

I would think that lawyers could definately argue that it is illegal to go on Disney property giving a tour and charging your customer which is actually their customer. I think it is pretty strange that this guy seems to think what he is doing is somehow ok. Seems others think it is ok as well. This guy is flirting with disaster. I never heard of this guy before so I admit I don't know all of his dealings with Disney. I have never seen a international group giving a "tour" before. Not saying it doesn't happen. I have seen them hold up signs to gather people but never a tour. There is copyright laws and I would guess that the parks would fall under those. Time spent in their park is a product that they sell and you cannot profit directly legally on that product. I would agree that most people who profit off them aren't big enough as a single entity for them to be able to go after but as a whole it definately hits their profit margin. I would also say if you do profit from them, ruffling of feathers or in this case fur, may not be a wise idea. Something like don't bite the hand that feeds you. I don't think anybody would expect to be able to create a Disney tshirt and expect to be able to sell them on property. A tour is a product when it comes to this, Disneyland is not public property. After thinking about it, technically, I think he could even face a lawsuit if he didn't charge because what he was doing has commercial value.

[rwodonnell]

I would think that lawyers could definately argue that it is illegal to go on Disney property giving a tour and charging your customer which is actually their customer. I think it is pretty strange that this guy seems to think what he is doing is somehow ok. Seems others think it is ok as well.
Well it's not clear from his description of the events that he ever took their money. If the tour was pre-paid, we can assume that the original trio that never got their tour with him are the ones that paid.
I have never seen a international group giving a "tour" before. Not saying it doesn't happen. I have seen them hold up signs to gather people but never a tour.
What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me. As others have mentioned, there are other businesses that do this as well (Michaels VIP was mentioned).

As to your other points, there may be legal issues, and he may be biting the hand that feeds him, but Disney's response still has the appearance of singling out one guy because they don't like him.

[DancingBear]

Disney's spokeperson states that only Disney cast members can give tours of Disneyland. I suppose that policy spills over into Central Florida.

Does that mean this guy (http://www.michaelsvips.com/vip_tour.htm) is in violation of Disney policy. Or, does it go under the "point a to point b" category because he's not the author of a Disney website?Sounds like point-to-point to me:

He or she guides your family through the most fun, 'best of the best' attractions, ensuring that your wait is minimized at all times. Our Private Guides begin each day with a mental itinerary of what's best, but they also know that no plans are 'set in stone.' They never forget that this is your vacation! (It takes experience to remain flexible ...)

You avoid the infamous lines & crowds because your Private Guide knows 'when' to be 'where.

[WebmasterCricket]

I'd say he's "stealing" more from Disney than Jim Hill is.
I suppose that now that this sort of thing is in the public light, we may see others shut down as well. It would be the fair thing to do.

My beef here is that Disney has selected Jim Hill as the one tour that they DON'T allow. And, it's because they don't like the content.
I'd guess that no matter who ran the tour, once the ladies complained, they would be sunk. The fact that it was Jim was probably the only reason we know about it. It may have happened in the past and we never heard about it. I don't think he is being singled out at all. I guess others are seeing it differently.

It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal.
I agree with you somewhat because the ladies most likely wouldn't have complained if the content was all balloons and lollypops based. Other than that, it is an effect of him ripping them off.

And really, Mr. Cricket, the archived article doesn't exactly support the position that he is considered a non-entity by Disney. If he had been denied access from the beginning, maybe. But they singled him out by pulling his credentials at the last minute. That's not something that happens to a single "non-entity".

Agreed. I was off a bit on what I remembered form the incident. Someone saw or heard what he said and they didn't like it for sure and that put him in the limelight without question. Although without hearing both sides of the story, it's sort of difficult to know if they pulled the "credentials" because he was simply biased or that they really thought he was an agent of the dark side with Roy and therefore truly couldn't be considered true "press" (which I don't think he is any more than any of us are).


Further, unless he was lying, they TOLD him he was being singled out due to his remarks printed in the Wall Street Journal.

Even if we take his word as truth and assuming he didn't leave anything out of the story, there is still no way of knowing as I just said that it was the comments themselves that got the pass pulled or the fact that they didn't want someone having press access who wasn't actualy considered press.

I don't know how you get access like that to begin with, but if it's some generic form anyone can fill out, I can see Disney giving blanket approval to someone like him until they find out that he isn't really "press" in the traditional sense of the word, which could support my "Jim is a nobody" comment. I suppose we will never know.


I would like to know if they take away his annual pass :)

[crusader]

He writes articles and publishes them on-line which gives him limited credentials in today's media asylum. I'll bet Deb Wills has quite a bit of clout.

Disney pulled him in Phila. because they can control the politics of access to some degree, and his form of publicity is not typically favorable to the company. The SaveDisney campaign was enough to deal with last year. Jim Hill was very easy to eliminate from the fray.

But again, and I can't emphasize this enough, he knew he was on borrowed time - particularly with last year's events. He wasn't smart about it. Disney would have continued to allow him to come and go and manage his site etal had he played by the rules. I doubt the company concerns themselves with his fans. He should have left it at that and not ventured toward the mainstream guest. Critical mistake.

[All Aboard]

He should have left it at that and not ventured toward the mainstream guest. Again, I don't think he has. I think that his tour participants are the fringe. (Which we qualify as, by the way.)

[crusader]

Yeah, I always knew I was on the 'fringe' - nice to see I've got some company!! :cool2:

And I agree, his tours would include this caliber. If he's really operating this way, then I don't see how the complaints arise?

[WDW_DV]

Of course all of this could have been avoided if he had simply checked to see that these three ladies matched the no-shows on his roster for the tour...

[WDSearcher]

I do also want to state that Jim should get quite a bit of credit for taking one on the chin and getting back up to his feet without throwing a tantrum (yet). I really thought he would have freaked out afterwards.
It depends on where you read. Some articles have him saying that Disney was "being so serious, so Disney, so polite and professional." In others: "The next thing I know, I've got an Anaheim police detective advising me that - should I decide to continue with my tour - the park's security staff could have me escorted off property. Worse yet, they could have me arrested. Which - at least to my way of thinking - is not the best way to end a visit to The Happiest Place on Earth."

I think he really wants to throw a tantrum, but deep down knows that what he was doing wasn't really something he should be doing. If someone started writing a column very much like his, with its own wry commentary and "inside track," but also included all the unflattering Jim Hill info out there, and then put it under a web address like jimhilllmedia.com, my thinking is that he'd be a tad bit ornery too.

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

No big surprise to me really. JHM (Jim) was granted Media status, but closed out of attending the Philadelphia Freedom and stockholders meetings last year.
I recall reading his press about being closed out. IMHO, "God" Ei$ner had JH on his craplist as JHM has not been "policatically correct" enough for "God". Other points here are valid too, but that's how I see the bottom line in this case. That may be, but I think part of what Jim likes is to be "closed out" of things. If he's let in, he has the same story everyone else has. When he gets closed out, he has a whole different story, and it gets to feature him. He wasn't the only press guy who didn't get a pass in Philly. And, frankly, he could have gotten in on his own as a Disney stockholder, simply by reserving a ticket. So why he didn't just do that -- if it truly was the story he was after -- is beyond me.

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me. Well, sure. But they impart info they got from Disney ... or from the tour books. They're not giving up stories told by Imagineers, or rumors about what happened once in Space Mountain. Jim's tour, as I understand it, included not just normal Disney info, but stuff he's gleaned from retired animators and Imagineers, and things that he's heard about, and his opinions on things. It's a "behind the scenes / behind the dirt" kind of thing. A tour for real, true Disney fanatics who have read all the books, seen all the specials, and want to know stuff that's outside that. It's not, "And here we have It's A Small World, which was one of the original attractions at the 1964 Worlds Fair ... "

I would imagine that Disney would prefer that Jim not be telling stories related by retired CMs or spreading rumors about happenings back in the "Walt years." Jim isn't always completely accurate in his stories and rumors -- he regularly does a "what I got wrong" column on his site -- and he's not alway objective in his thoughts and descriptions of how Disney works.

I think that's what makes it different than a foreign tour group or a concierge VIP service. And I think that's what makes Disney not appreciative of his efforts.

:earsboy:

[Sk8Leigh]

I don't see why Disney should have to allow him to give any kind of tour on their property. If they want to stop the tours just because they don't like what he's saying, I think that's fine. It's their property. Free speech issues don't apply, IMO, because that only relates to what the government can stop you from saying. I don't think they could stop him if he was charging people to come over to his back yard and listen to his Disney "history" (although I'm really not even sure about that), but if he's doing it on their property, I think they have every right to make him stop. And if it's only because they don't like what he's saying, so be it.

[All Aboard]

A tour for real, true Disney fanatics who have read all the books, seen all the specials, and want to know stuff that's outside that. It's not, "And here we have It's A Small World, which was one of the original attractions at the 1964 Worlds Fair ... " Precisely! And that's why Jim is not competing against Disney.

This is solely about content.

[DVCconvert]

WD....
That may be, but I think part of what Jim likes is to be "closed out" of things. If he's let in, he has the same story everyone else has. When he gets closed out, he has a whole different story, and it gets to feature him. He wasn't the only press guy who didn't get a pass in Philly. And, frankly, he could have gotten in on his own as a Disney stockholder, simply by reserving a ticket. So why he didn't just do that -- if it truly was the story he was after -- is beyond me.

Are you sure he's a stockholder??? I thought I read something he wrote that said he was not!????

AND....just wondering, why haven't you commented on the 'NEWS of the day' Found here?......CLICK (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=780499)

:earboy2: ...I KNOW you have a sense of humor! ;)

[what]

Well it's not clear from his description of the events that he ever took their money. If the tour was pre-paid, we can assume that the original trio that never got their tour with him are the ones that paid.
Well he clearly had a price on his site for the tour. Whether he received payment I have no idea. But I'm sure a small company like Disney might have enough resources to gather such info. Like I said, it could and would be argued that even if he didn't receive monies that the tour has commercial value to them.

What would you consider those groups if not a tour group? The leaders of those groups guide you through the park and impart information. Seems like the same thing to me. As others have mentioned, there are other businesses that do this as well (Michaels VIP was mentioned).

As to your other points, there may be legal issues, and he may be biting the hand that feeds him, but Disney's response still has the appearance of singling out one guy because they don't like him.
I said I have never seen such a tour. I did admit I have seen people gather at a sign being held up but I have never seen these people follow in a group all over Disney. Maybe I am just not as perceptive as some. Though I would like to think that I would notice a group of individuals with somebody dropping some Disney knowledge on them. I didn't dispute that it happens. My observation is that I have seen them gather at a destination. Mostly at bus stops actually. Kind of like when you go on a field trip in school. Personally I wouldn't have called such a field trip a tour. Like I said I'm sure it happens though. Still doesn't mean in anyway that he wasn't breaking any laws. Seems to me his tours would still be going on if not for some bad luck. Unless you think the ladies don't really exist. Not that any of it matters, if Disney did/does want to single him out they will. He won't have to worry about it if he doesn't break any laws. They have the right to kick people out of the parks. I have seen them do it before. It was hardly a nice experience for the ones involved either. You would have thought they murdered someone. Were they being obnoxious, loud, rude, and using vulgarity? Yep. Did they deserve to be kicked out? Absolutely. But, the manor in which they were treated was unreal. That was along time ago and maybe things have changed with security. It seems to me he at least was treated pretty fairly considering they could have banned him completely if they wanted too.

[Bob O]

The reason the women complained is because they wanted a meal(and were too dumb not too realize it wasnt a disney tour) and probably they wanted the sanitzed version of disney that you will find on alot of web sites(escpeically most things on this site that are posted by the people who control the site).
Disney was within there rights to do what they did, which doesnt mean it was the right thing to do. Jim Hill's site gives one alot of interesting reading and info you dont find alot of places(PS it would be nice if somone on this site in a official capacity did the same thing rather than parrot the disney company line).
By there action in this case and the annual meeting it shows the current disney regime will go to great lengths to squash different viewpoints.
And disney makes alot of money off foreign tour groups, so they look the other way and dont care if these groups run roughshod over the park and ruin the enjoyment of other guests. If disney wanted a better park experience they wouldnt bother with a small group like hill's but would control the large brazilian tour groups which cause nothing but trouble as they run thru the parks in a uncontrollable manner.

[MPLsDad]

If disney wanted a better park experience they wouldnt bother with a small group like hill's but would control the large brazilian tour groups which cause nothing but trouble as they run thru the parks in a uncontrollable manner.

Like Smokey, I second that emotion! Don't just limit it to Jim Hill! Kick every large tour group out!!!! :banana: They gotta go!

[rwodonnell]

Like Smokey, I second that emotion! Don't just limit it to Jim Hill! Kick every large tour group out!!!!
If that happens, it will have been worth the sacrifice Jim Hill made! Thanks Jim! ;)

[dsanner106]

I tend to agree, I have been stuck in tour groups before, both foreign and domestic and have heard the guides give opinions and tell anecdotes Disney would not like, I see no difference between those groups and his. If they are going to kick him out, kick them all out. I think in order to do it, they will have to prove disruption though, as they are open to the public and have guidelines in place for remaining on the property.

[what]

Actually they don't have to prove anything. It is private property regardless if they permit access to it. Not to mention they don't even have to refund any money. I agree they should shut them all down if they are a problem. I can't believe I have been going to Disney properties for at least 25 years and have never had such a problem. Of course I will be at WDW in May and I have just jinxed myself. :earseek:

[rwodonnell]

Actually they don't have to prove anything. It is private property regardless if they permit access to it. Not to mention they don't even have to refund any money. I agree they should shut them all down if they are a problem. I can't believe I have been going to Disney properties for at least 25 years and have never had such a problem. Of course I will be at WDW in May and I have just jinxed myself. :earseek:
We usually have run into them in the summer, though the last time we were there in April, I think I saw a couple. But I think the summer months tend to be the big season where you can see several really large groups in one day.

[GaryAdams]

I'm also far from a Jim Hill "fan". I don't even read his stuff very often.

But I'm with Greg on this. It's pretty clear its the content that led to his removal. That doesn't mean that I think the upper echelons at Team Disney are having daily meetings on how to counter Jim Hill. But somebody, and maybe its just a mid-level manager, got tired of it and singled him out.

I have to agree with matt on this.

just for fun i googled "Disneyland tours" not until the 3rd page does jim hill disney tours come up,and that comes up on another site, Mousetrips.com.
http://www.mouseketrips.com/content/view/155/144/

Yes his name does come up before that,but it is just because of him getting kicked out.Not linking to his site about the tours.

This is just a case of some mid-level suit getting a chance to get back at him for some other article that may have taken a shot at their department.Not for a min do i think the upper suits take the time to read him or even this website.But i will bet big money mid-level management does.
The bad part is,this does nothing but get jim hills name out there more,and give him another chance to take shots at disney.
Myself i did read his site back a year ago during the shareholders meeting time,but overall its just 1 mans opinion of disney,and how they feel about it.

Can you ever get inside info from him? Maybe,but its not like Eisners secretary is leaking inside info to jim.

I would like to see if down the road this has an effect on other non-disney sponsored tours.
Until then,i will bet that jim hill plays this right (IE,the victim)and uses it to futher get his name and website out.
In some ways i find it funny,he was given a golden egg by disney to premote himself.
Just think, if it ends up that he was singled out,he will have alot of lawyers biting at the bit to bring a lawsuit.
This whole thing reminds me of the daycare wall paintings thing.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.htm

Some mid-level guy trying to kiss some butt and get ahead.

[what]

For them to have singled him out they would have had to plant these people who complained. That is not even close to probable considering they have every right to kick him out at any time without any reason. There would be absolutely no case even if they singled him out. They can choose whomever they want to allow or deny tours.

As far as the murals. That was interesting. I don't quite follow your logic in a comparison though. They would be in a no win situation. They don't want to set precedence in allowing some entity to use their characters without permission. Let's say they did, you would have people saying it is merely a publicity stunt and so on.

Anyway, the idea that he is gonna go to court based upong getting kicked out of the park for something that he did which is illegal is a pipedream. Kind of like a loan shark going to court thinking he could get his loan money back. Not gonna happen it's called usury. That is why they just break your legs. So don't really see him getting into a court based upon his performing of a illegal act resulting in his exit from the park. Not saying somebody won't try it. Unless he gets the ACLU I don't see him getting lawyered up enough to take them on. It would be a waste unless a lawyer was trying to make a name for himself. However it really isn't a discrimination case.

[DancingBear]

This whole thing reminds me of the daycare wall paintings thing.There's really no comparison here. Copyright owners need to actively protect their copyrights, or they can lose the rights. These "cease and desist" letters go out all of the time.

[GaryAdams]

There's really no comparison here. Copyright owners need to actively protect their copyrights, or they can lose the rights. These "cease and desist" letters go out all of the time.


My point is, disney wouldnt even have known about the painting unless someone told them about it.
( IE maybe a former employee of the daycare,maybe a parent who was mad at the daycare,or maybe some employee of disney used that daycare for their children)
In both cases, the paintings and jim hill someone complained and after disney did some thing about it,they were and are going to be made the big bad evil company picking on the little guy.
Lets just hope they never decide to go after all the people here on the DIS who have disney pics in their avatars.
Oh wait what about those people who have a disney tattoo? remove them with a grinder?

For them to have singled him out they would have had to plant these people who complained. That is not even close to probable considering they have every right to kick him out at any time without any reason. There would be absolutely no case even if they singled him out. They can choose whomever they want to allow or deny tours.

Im sure 99% of the employees in the park that day didnt know he was giving a tour,he would be lucky if even 5% of them have even seen his website.
My point is,by them kicking him out all they (Disney) did was give jim hill and his website more press.
People are removed from the park every day,you just never hear about them.


I go back to my first post,i would bet that this is just a case of some mid-level manager having the complaint come across his or hers desk,and they thought
"wow heres a chance for me to look good by striking down a evil man who attacks the great and wise Disney. Heres my chance to make brownie points"

In the end i find the whole thing funny,heres some smuck who can say "not once but twice,disney has kicked me out of or denied me entrance too them."

Yea just know that in the sue happy world we live in today, some lawyer is trying to figure out if they can take this to court and get some money out of it.

[DancingBear]

Lets just hope they never decide to go after all the people here on the DIS who have disney pics in their avatars.
Oh wait what about those people who have a disney tattoo? remove them with a grinder?The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.

[WDSearcher]

WD....


Are you sure he's a stockholder??? I thought I read something he wrote that said he was not!???? I've read a few times where he's made comments about how this or that decision or attraction wasn't doing his stock any good, but I suppose he could be just generalizing. Or perhaps he sold them.

:confused3

[WDSearcher]

AND....just wondering, why haven't you commented on the 'NEWS of the day' Found here?......CLICK (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=780499)
Nah ... it was too easy. The best April Fool's Day articles are the ones that you read and you're not sure about. This one? Too obvious. :teeth:

:earsboy:

[WDSearcher]

By there action in this case and the annual meeting it shows the current disney regime will go to great lengths to squash different viewpoints. But, considering none of Disney actions actually DID squash any different viewpoints, it would appear that maybe the quieting of people like Jim Hill was not their intent. Disney knew that by pulling Jim from the park, they were going to get slammed in Jim's column and that Jim would likely get a lot more web hits and business because of it. They knew that by pulling his press credentials, they would get slammed in Jim's column and that Jim would likely get a lot more web hits and business because of it. They probably got a lot more of those different viewpoints out there because of what they denied Jim Hill than they would have had they admitted him in the first place.

Obviously they have a reason other than squashing different viewpoints.

:earsboy:

[Bayshore Bandit]

Enlighten me as to why what JH was doing is considered
illegal?

[rwodonnell]

The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.
The avatars used here are no less commercial in nature than the wall paintings at a day care. The wall paintings were simply decoration in a business where they probably figured "hey, the kids will like Disney". Here on this commercial web site, the avatars are hosted by the DIS. Perhaps they have permission, but it seems pretty much the same to me.

[crusader]

Enlighten me as to why what JH was doing is considered illegal?

Looks to be misrepresentation based on the story here: http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1363

[WebmasterCricket]

<--retracted-->

[rwodonnell]

So let's see here Jimbo...2:30 + 20 minutes = 2:50. Where did the other hour and 10 minutes go Jim?

I'll file this under the ever thickening folder of "what Jim made up today".
I'm not following you. Wasn't the second reference where he says they stopped him actually a different day? Maybe I am reading it wrong.

[wtpclc]

Yes, after the 3 women finished Jim's tour, they complained. The next tour was the one that was stopped by security.

He does seem to be enjoying that attention, though!

[WebmasterCricket]

Yup, Saturday and Sunday. I'll retract.

[GaryAdams]

The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.

Didnt the tattoo artist who put the tattoo on charge money to do it?

Oh wait doesnt the DIS take in money from people to keep the website going?
Seems to me the DIS is a commercial enterprise run by pete.

Oh wait again didnt the daycares just have mickey painted on the wall?

Look at it how ever you want, but in my view the daycare paintings and jim hill fall into the same catagory, Disney got lots of bad press and were made to look like the big bad company.
Over 2 little things that have no outcome on the over-all bottom line.

Who knows maybe the 25 people who just got laid-off were the lawyers who send out the cease and desist letters?

I think we just dont know the whole story,im betting jim hill was using a refillable mug he bought last year and thats what really got him kicked out.

[WDSearcher]

I think the Jim Hill thing and the daycare thing are two different things. Jim Hill enjoys tormenting Disney; the daycare probably doesn't.

The daycare center was turned in by some anal retentive do-gooder on a copyright quest. It's not like the daycare center was out to make money off of Disney. If the daycare had used Disney-made decals or patterns or bought a Disney-branded wall mural, they'd have been fine. They just decided to do it themselves, and some over zealous fan turned them in. (And, actually ... a group of VoluntEARS from Disney went there and did an actual Disney mural for them several months after the fact. No one ever reports that part.)

In Jim Hill's case, he was making money (or charging money, at least ... whether it was profitable or not, who knows) doing a "behind the scenes" style tour on Disney property. His aim was to make money off of Disney.

Honestly? If Jim had invited all the tour folks over to his house, showed slides, and told all of his stories there, no one would have blinked. If he'd have kept quietly giving his tours at WDW, no one would have said anything. It's when Guests complained because they didn't get what they paid Disney for that it all went wrong. If he'd have simply checked his roster to be sure that the people on his tour were the people who were supposed to be there, he'd still be free and clear.

:earsboy:

[rwodonnell]

If he'd have simply checked his roster to be sure that the people on his tour were the people who were supposed to be there, he'd still be free and clear.
This is really the crime, and it is a somewhat serious one. I mean it was clearly pretty unprofessional to just keep yapping when these women walked up. And he set himself up for it by starting the tour so near the other tour's start. All that said, though, I don't like the idea of them shutting his tours down, and I hope they don't shut down the other tours either.

[ShadowWind]

I doubt what Jim Hill did was illegal. They wanted to arrest him, because Disney has every right to eject someone from their private property at any time they feel like it. As he left, there was no further charges. Disney is perfectly aware that people give tours there all the time for money. It's a symbiotic relationship that they have with the tour group companies, in cross promotion.

The problem is that he represented himself, though maybe not intentionally, as a Disney sanctioned tour guide, and then proceeded to tell these people stories that were derogatory to Disney's brand. Starting in the same place as Disney only led to the confusion. I don't blame these women. If I paid for a $xx dollar tour, I sure the heck would be rather pissed off if I was led around by someone else while missing the tour I was supposed to be on. Just this confusion was enough for Disney to escort him off the property and not allow him further tours. Add to this, his rather off brand content and Disney had every reason to take him out of commission. I doubt I'd last long in a restaurant if I started telling patrons that rats were in the food and in the kitchen and to be careful of the lasagna. In fact, we got ripped off by the Comfort Inn on US-192 and when we complained loudly in front of other guests, they called the police on us. We didn't get arrested, but we had to leave.

BTW, it's not copyright that you have to defend or lose it, that's trademark. Copyright is never lost, whether you decide to go after someone or not.

I have spent a lot of time at WDW and I don't see what is so bad about the Brazilian tour groups. Every one that I've encountered have been quite nice and polite, much more than some American groups.

[Geoff_M]

I've read all five pages of this thread, and ShadowWind comes the closest to nailing it. There's nothing "illegal" about what Jim Hill was doing. The problem is that people here are confusing legalities with rights. DLR, being a private property, has the right to ask anyone to leave the property for any reason they see fit. Period. It's no different than your home turf or mine. Whether or not it's "smart" for them to exercise their option in this case is another question. The flip side of the coin is that Hill has no "right" to run the tour on DLR's property. "Free speech" doesn't matter on private property. Hill can say what he wants about Disney, but he can be made to say it off-site.

As for the international tour guide analogy, there are several key differences. Even though the guides may offer info about DLR as they walk their charges from attraction to attraction, their primary function isn't to dispense knowledge about DLR... it's to help the tourists experience the attractions. If Disney were to start doing this, my guess is the folks with the pennants would start to get grief from Disney too.

Other key differences that I read and spotted:
1) Hill started his tour in the same general area as the official tours.
2) Per the photos (*) it appears that Jim Hill did the tours wearing a GOH badge. I know from wearing those that a LOT of people mistake you for a CM.
3) Disney also offers a tour that's about the history of DLR.

Given the above three points, it easy to see the confusion that many guests (particularly inexperienced ones) would have in differentiating between Hill's tour and DLR's. You and I know the difference between the GOH and CM badges, but to a first time visitor that often isn't so. In the world of marketing, you don't want other people confusing your product with some one else's... and DLR, particularly due to the complaint filed by the three ladies, decided that enough confusion existed to try and do something about it. True, the ladies may have been numbskulls, but that doesn't make the situation any less of the headache for Disney with they complained about it.

As for his CD idea, I think it'll fly and Disney can't touch him on the matter. He can position it as a audio "publication" and as such be allowed to use Disney's trademarks under the "editorial" section of "fair use" law.

*
http://o-meon.com/images/arch_pix/arc_indx_pics/arc_indx_pg4_pic10.jpg

[crusader]

The legalities are questionable.

Three women enter into a contract with Disney for a tour. They show up and somebody else conducts it without verifying if these women were actually under contract with him to do so. No monies exchange hands between these two parties because the women are operating under a false assumption that they had purchased this tour from the party now giving it. Do they have a claim?

Maybe -

It could depend on whether an implied contract was then formed with Jim Hill. If that can be established then the simple rules of contract law 101 come into play with these examples:

http://www.scu.edu/law/FacWebPage/Neustadter/e-books/abridgedcontracts/main/commentary/MistakeMisrepDuress.html

And what about Disney?

The fact is: Jim Hill executed a contract on behalf of Disney without their consent. Whether he did by mistake or not is only relevant to damages.

[lillasmom]

Maybe next trip to OKW I'll set up a keg at one of the quiet pools and sell $2.00 pints.


:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2: